True, raging hormones rule in high school. It's eternal. But precisely because of that, school dress codes or regulations are a legitimate defense of the learning environment in an age when students are aping the droopy-pantsed, underwear-forward teen boys and tarted-up, barely-dressed teen girls on cable TV and in magazine ads and fashion catalogs.
So I give a thumbs-up to Port Townsend High School, for trying to actually enforce its existing dress code against excessive skin display and in-school sartorial sluttiness. It's a flash of common sense for the liberal-leaning burg on Washington's Olympic Peninsula - a place where teachers at the high school recently staged a sick out over a coach's replacement; where kids can't spell; and seditionist publishers find friendly refuge.
More from the Port Townsend Leader. The school is getting serious about over-the-top identity-badge regalia, such as super-short skirts, see-through blouses, backlesses tops for girls and low-hanging, underwear-revealing pants for guys.
I always crack up when state legislatures go after baggy trousers (such as Virginia recently), but schools are well within their rights here. Workplaces have dress codes, so these kids may as well get used to the reality that awaits. Even student organizations on college campuses have unofficial, written dress codes. For instance, Washington State University students working at the campus newspaper or yearbook staff are instructed to dress professionally (10th graf, "Office Etiquette").
There is no official dress-code, however, business casual is appropriate. If your attire is deemed to be inappropriate by your supervisor, you will be asked to leave.
Here's what the principal says in Port Townsend.
....Port Townsend High School Principal Carrie Ehrhardt...said....."It seems as if every year the dress gets more provocative – more kids are wearing their pants low, showing their underwear and bellies," she said. "We counted in the lunch room one day and found 30 students who we felt were dressed inappropriately."
Now, the ACLU, or its suppoprters, are getting into the act.
Many PTHS students received a flyer on their car in January about dress codes and constitutional rights. The anonymous flyer quotes the American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Constitution."Your attire is protected by the first and 14th amendments to the Constitution," the flyer reads. "Mention these amendments to your school officials if they comment on your attire. If you're willing to go to court to affirm your right to express yourself, tell them that also."
This is an age-old struggle. The focus in schools should be on academic work and achievment. Anything that distracts from that must be tamped down.
In addition to workplaces and some college campus organizations, Catholic and other private schools have long had uniforms or dress codes. I'm all for that in public schools, too. Individual expression in K-12 schools should come through academic and extra-curricicular activities, not provocative dress. That's a cheap shortcut to real individuality. And besides; the outlandish costumes aren't even "individual;" they're all the same.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at February 17, 2005 06:33 AM | Email This1. The staff doesn't want to deal with the reaction of kids and parents.
2. Some of the staff themselves are getting distracted by the attire and just as soon leave it that way. Come on, have you seen how much skin shows, how tight things are (to borrow from my much admired blooger, Ambra Nykol, some of these girls look like a "busted can 'o biscuits")?
Posted by: Robyn on February 17, 2005 07:08 AMI have had three kids go through public school and I thank God every day they do not want to dress that way. It was disturbing to watch my son oogle those girls wearing short t-shirts and very low cut jean. I told my girls that they could not dress that way because that is "asking for it."
I boils down to one thing. Where are the parents here? Why are they letting their kids leave home looking like this? Why are we expecting the school to police what the kids wear?
Enact a dress code nationwide in all public schools.
Posted by: sz on February 17, 2005 07:38 AMThe problem of proper appearance isn’t just with the students. Look at the way some of the teachers dress. In most cases, not slutty, but certainly not professional. Baggy sweats, jeans, and t-shirts are the norm.
How you present yourself is critical. Dress like a slob (or slut) and you will be treated appropriately.
In my dimly remembered high school days I remember "No Solicitation" signs posted all about school grounds. Don't those ACLU fliers count as solicitation?
Regards,
Posted by: Graham on February 17, 2005 07:56 AMOut of interest, if a boy brought in magazines of girls dressed like that would he be suspended under the "no tolerance" rule on pornography?
Posted by: Jonathan on February 17, 2005 08:18 AMSchool is "work" for kids and it's appropirate that they learn that as adults, we have certain restrictions on what we can wear in work settings for both respect and safety. I'll bet those ACLU lawyers are wearing suits when they go into a courtroom, and there's no reason why kids can't learn that their are reasonable limits to dress in school as well.
I'm sure the folks over at HorsesAss.org and other trolls will soon be posting just as they did regarding smokers, that the kids have an absolute right to be naked if that's what they choose. And they'll quote from the "Naked Guy" that roamed California Berekeley's campus in the early 1990s.
There are no limits for the irrational.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 17, 2005 08:22 AMOur administration deals with this daily. Fortunately, it is limited to the same culprits. Unfortunately, the parents see nothing wrong with their little girls being seen as whores. (And probably performing as such.)
Posted by: Janet S on February 17, 2005 08:24 AMIt's worse than you think!
Posted by: Bill Polhemus on February 17, 2005 08:47 AMI did have a very strict dress code in College, uniforms in fact (West Point) so I can appreciate how it helps with the learning environment.
I'm not a religious person, so I'd rather not put my child into a private religious school, so I'm hoping that by the time he grows up (he's six months right now) that more and more public schools will have jumped on the idea of dress codes or uniforms.
Posted by: Jason on February 17, 2005 08:56 AM"...but then my parents would NOT let me go out of the house looking, as my dad put it, like some idiot who doesn't know how to dress himself."
Posted by: Jason on February 17, 2005 08:57 AMThis has taken on urban myth status. The dress is on the model BACKWARDS. There is enough wrong with the world without making problems out of ones that aren't there.
Posted by: Janet S on February 17, 2005 09:11 AMDoes this change when you change the packaging? Never.The showing off a bra strap use to be enough to set off the lascivious imagination of my school years, the way one girls ass looked in jeans was enough to set the locker room talking, a girl with breast, god help her, caused all sorts of scandalous behavior as early as grade school.
Does this change when you change the packaging? Never.
Kids will find away to express themselves sexually, they are sexual beings.
We may be better of keeping it in the opening instead of driving it under the bleachers,
Don't ignore human nature.
Posted by: Doc on February 17, 2005 09:35 AMSuper. Now lets prevent the schools from having any influence as well.
We'll raise the kids in a giant matriarch.
Posted by: Andy on February 17, 2005 09:37 AMOther related problems in schools include reading material that is adult in nature, showing inappropriate movies, using crude language at school (language they read in books and see in movies at school!), printing questionable material in school newspapers, and allowing students to exhibit a general disrespect for authority. What does it take for a child to be kick out of school these days?
Parents need to teach their children respect for authority at home at a very early age or they will be constantly rebellious. Teachers need to enforce strict academic discipline at school or their students will probably never become responsible adults.
What, the man never asks for a divorce?
Posted by: Doc on February 17, 2005 09:40 AMGirls walking around basically topless, or race baiting does not need to be accepted. If a few decide that they are people of such little value all they can do is to try and shock the rest of the community, they should be pitied not given a "that's OK" it is just being human. It is also being human to control oneself.
Posted by: Jonathan on February 17, 2005 09:48 AMThat's what I thought when I first saw it on some blogs. But go to the referenced article on the New York Post.
If this is an "Internet legend," then I'm not the only one who's been fooled. And why doesn't the owner of the company distributing the "product" state that it is a "hoax" in the NYP article?
You say it's false, I say it's true. My reference is the New York Post, what's yours?
Posted by: Bill Polhemus on February 17, 2005 09:57 AMDo you know a way around kids forming exclusive groups?
My point is a girl showing her bra in a see thru blouse can cause no more scandal then the hint off a bra through a sweater. Kids have an imagination and it often leans toward the lascivious.
What is different is we have grown older and, as always, fail to understand the youth.
Posted by: Doc on February 17, 2005 09:58 AM80% of fathers are removed from the kids in Divorce. 50% of all marriages end in divorce. Who filed has nothing to do with custody, but if you care, women file more frequently.
If you can tell me of EVEN ONE CASE where a father got full custody of an out of wedlock child I'd buy you ice cream.
The inappropriate dress of these kids is also an indicator that they are starved for attention. Yes another indicator something is missing at home.
But that's ok, because DSHS rakes in the money from federal rewards for bringing dads to justice by extorting money through fatherless children. We all know our state needs revenue.
Posted by: Andy on February 17, 2005 10:10 AMThe relation to groups being human nature is that just because things are human nature does not mean that it cannot be steered in a given direction instead of letting them try to shock everyone. This great tolarance would not be accepted as "human nature of belonging" if the group was the KKK. Why do we have to accept the "human nature of sexuality" to mean girls can walk around topless?
Posted by: Jonathan on February 17, 2005 10:12 AMYou imply the inappropriate dress of these kids stems from the lack of a father figure, meaning that we would not find children dressing like this in a traditional family setting. I must disagree.
Children are dressing like this because of the images piped into our homes (apparently with our approval) via TV.
They are dressing this way because it is the way their generation has chosen to express itself. Generations are always at odds over dress code.
Remember the Poodle Skirt? I don't. But it upset a lot of parents in its day according to great grand mammy.
"What does it take for a child to be kick out of school these days?"
An asprin. Or a fingernail clipper. Or...
Posted by: NW Mike on February 17, 2005 10:26 AMI'm not religous either, but I intend to send my daughter to a private school that we like that happens to be Catholic. She will learn about Catholism and what religions stand for. She will be able to make up her own mind on that. I prefer the association of a group that feels that you can have moral standards and you are expected to live up to them to the association of no standards so anything you do will not fall below what is expected.
Posted by: Jonathan on February 17, 2005 10:27 AMI also don't believe rules created by school boards will provide the proper push in the right direction.
Kids will rebel.
Posted by: Doc on February 17, 2005 10:49 AMConsequently we end up with a City Council that has opened meetings with poetry readings and takes on issues like world peace and nuke bans. Meanwhile we Have a budget crises and basic sevices like street repair get pushed down the list.
We have utopian "visioning" proposing a walking town, urban agriculture that supplies all our food and saving salmon while our own homegrown population is unable to sustain itself so we end up importing from California.
When little Suzy graduates she is almost certain to leave for greener employment pastures. And what a future! Feeling good about herself, "culturaly relevant" and multicultural, armed with the math skills of Sims and Logan - what employer could resist such Qualifications.
This dress code contreversy is merely a symtom of attitudes of much greater consequence.
Posted by: JC on February 17, 2005 11:26 AMPt. Townsend is the poor man's Berkeley of the North.
The City is broke and the approve a $5.4 million City Hall Restoration and new Annex plus a new Fire Station. They spend $40,000 for a parking study and ignore it waiving parking requirements for their own City Hall. The list of stupidity is endless.
These "Visionaries" never finish their vision with how they are going to pay for anything and who will be able to afford to live their.
A bunch of "pretend" Hippy's or as one guy in town calls 'em "HIPPYCRITES"!!!!!!
Congrats to the School District.
However watch for a rebellion lead by the idiots who missed the 60's and what a second shot at living the dream!!
Yes, I've seen that but an alternate explanation is that it's simply a different dress than the one shown.
Posted by: Bill Polhemus on February 17, 2005 01:23 PMI think that pretty much ends the debate. I should know better.
----------
It seems natural that the mother would retain custody of an out of wedlock child being that she solely is equipped with mammary glands needed to nourish a baby. Breast feeding should continue 'till the age of two and hopefully 'till four.
You imply the inappropriate dress of these kids stems from the lack of a father figure, meaning that we would not find children dressing like this in a traditional family setting. I must disagree.
Okay, Janet, I've read the article you mention. Thanks for pointing it out. It doesn't change much, though. Please consider (from the Knight-Ridder/Tribune article you cited):
1. The dress wasn't put on backward; the model "was supposed to cross the dress straps at her neck and have the material fan out across her chest. Instead she wore it with the straps coming straight off her shoulders, crossing at her waist." So she simply wore it with the straps arranged differently than it was supposed to be (N.B. I'm no fashion maven--and I'm straight--so I don't know much, but don't these models have people from the design house that dress them? Isn't it possible that they DID do it this way on purpose to cause a sensation, but retained "plausible deniability?")
2. The catalogue went out showing the dress that way.
3. People are buying the dress on the basis that it looks just like the "before" picture!
So even though this might ostensibly be an "Internet legend," it's still pretty fishy. And would YOU want your daughter wear this thing even the way it's "supposed" to be worn?
However, be advised that I have UPDATED my blog in the interest of accuracy. Thanks for the exchange of information.
(Oh, and FWIW, I assume you live in the Seattle area, but I live in Houston where this "dress company" is apparently located. I assure you we are a VERY conservative area of the country. The story's all that more weird because of that).
Posted by: Bill Polhemus on February 17, 2005 01:52 PMI do not know anything about Pam Roach's family. What I do know is that if parents love their child, as they naturally should, they will try to instill discipline in the child. This is not easy, but to not do so, proves they are not worthy of being a parent.
I did not say use "an iron fist." Save the iron fist for terrorists, child molesters, rapists, and sundry criminals.
Doc, you wouldn't be Doctor Benjamin Spock, would you? I heard he died and his theories died with him.
JG: "What does it take for a child to be kick out of school these days?"
NW Mike: "An aspirin. Or a fingernail clipper. Or..."
If parents and students are advised of those rules beforehand then I see no problem. Work to change the rules, or abide by them or home school your children. It used to be that when a child misbehaved at school he/she was more in trouble at home. Now if a child acts inappropriately at school the parents are mad at the teacher!
Rest assured the women having children out of wedlock are not breast feeding until 1, 2 or 4 years of age. I don't reckon the courts take this into consideration. Most recently they have been spotted hucking them out of car windows. It seems natural that the father has not yet been notified though doesn't it; he has no mammary glands and therefore, like an appendix or tonsils isn't important and can be dispensed with. The state will catch up with him later to collect child support and arrearages to solve a budget deficit.
More appropriate to this thread the women having children out of wedlock are the same kiddies PTSD is trying to address with a dress code.
I know the liberal way to deal with teen pregnancy is to remove all rights of fathers, promote self expression and free will for every girl who is irresponsible enough to get preggers and then collect child support later on while complaining about a mythical pay differential between the genders. But hey, if they want to wear a short skirt and no panties to school, who am I to impose my patriarchal regime on their identity?
The conservative way is to not let our daughters behave like attention starved sluts. A simple dress code and accountability seems a lot better for society and easier on our pocket books than the current approach.
I'm quite sorry to tell you, that this is what a capitalist democracy is all about, industrialists taking over society and changing as to improve their revenues.
If you don't like this, and would like the authorities (in this case school authorities) to safeguard the status quo, you are one step closer to totalitarism.
And, if the restrictions you'd like to impose are in the direction of mantaining the (all ready out-dated, by the way) status quo, instead of handling the important issues concerning school enrollment numbers, or how updated are the study programes, or how politlical aware are the students, you are only one step form proposing a regime in which progress and well being are not important.
It is your kind of reasoning which lead to the stablishment of the great dictatorships where social progres was set aside.
Your point of view is a danger not only to democracy, but to the well being of the american people.
It is you people who have brought about the decline of America as the land of progress and well being.
The only way to ensure that things remain the way they were back in your times of youth, is to stop the progress of society as a whole.
You call those teenagers slutty, but at least they will grow up and make this world better, they wont remain the rest of their lives trying to make society roll back all progress.
Sexual freedom is progress. And getting rid of sexual inhibition is part of sexual freedom.
Wellcome to the 21st century.
Posted by: syats on June 7, 2005 05:55 PM